You must be confused. Isaac agreed to no such terms. Laban deceived him. The contract was broken at that point but because he had already laid with Leah, it was his duty to keep her as his wife. This would fit the D&C description. But there is no indication that he first obtained Leah's permission to marry Rachel. Leah didn't make the terms. It wasn't her contract.
Where are you getting this? This is what it actually says:
24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.
25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?
26 And Laban said, It must not be so done in our country, to give the younger before the firstborn.
27 Fulfil her week, and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.
28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week: and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also.
Women were basically property. Please show me where Leah had any say in the matter.
And this answers my question how? According to D&C 132, the first wife was to give her consent. Leah didn't. They weren't following your "rules" of polygamy engagement. In case you missed the point of my argument. D&C 132 was not meant to be the only justification for polygamy. The events which took place between Jacob and his wife are evidence of that. Now, it's fine if you want to ignore the evidence, but it's still there.
I never argued that D&C 132 was the only justification for polygamy. Sarah chose for Abraham. Issac was deceived. The law of Moses were commanded to marry the widow of their brother. But none of those apply to us in our day. The only justification that has ever been given for us to justify polygamy is D&C 132, and those directions were not followed.
Fine. The question in the OP and how this relates places both Joseph Smith and Abraham in the same group either way you look at it.
Exactly. So we don't need to discuss all other ways polygamy was justified. It's not relevant to us.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
It doesn't matter. I don't want to go into another tangent.
No doubt. I see little reason to explain it to you. You don't seem to be able to grasp the concepts I do explain. Maybe someone else on this board can help you out.
Ummm...ok. I'll be waiting for anyone to explain that which is authorized by God is also an abomination. I'm sure it will be a very interesting concept. Lol!
